Is it safe to run the Boston marathon course from start to end early on a Saturday or Sunday?

There are sections without any sidewalks -- Hopkinton, Ashland, and then a stretch around the Natick-Wellesley border. But there is usually (always? don't remember) a shoulder and if you start early then traffic shouldn't be significant. Just keep yourself visible and you should be fine. When you get to Comm Ave, cut over to the carriage lane, which the runners pretty much own on weekends. Later in the run, when you hit Brookline and certainly Boston you'll probably start to see more foot traffic on the sidewalks (and car traffic on the roads). I have found dodging the pedestrians on Boylston St to be the hardest part of the run.

On marathon day, with all the crowds it's like a 26-mile block party. On a regular day you'll realize how ordinary the route is. But you'll still get experience the iconic landmarks, turning at the firehouse (at roughly mile 17, the first real turn you make in the whole course!), seeing the Citgo sign for the first time (and again and again for way too long!), and of course the right onto Hereford/left onto Boylston.

My group has done a BC to Welseley and back three weeks before the last few Bostons. In late March and early April the route even has water stops kindly provided by the main charities and traffic isn't too bad although the sidewalk is advisable sometimes. Other groups start in Hopkinton and run to BC and further. There are hundreds of runners out in that period so you do get a feel for the spirit of Boston. Never started from Hopkinton myself but I'd guess the first few miles might be a little narrow and busy. The hills in Newton are great because you can run on the service roads. It's definitely very doable. Weird thing is that the hills are less intimidating on a normal day not surrounded by other runners so maybe they really aren't such a big deal and it's all in the head. If you can stand the 'so near yet so far' feeling, go for it!

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

I hope you eventually get the qualifier you want. That said, each year the charity runners give back to Boston in a way that the qualifying runners don't. I've run 4 times, and 2 of those times I ran for charity. One year (2012) I had to run for charity because my BQ didn't quite meet the cutoff. The other year I got in as a qualifier and ran for charity also. The only place I've ever experienced people looking down on charity runners is here on these forums. It's not clear to me that in the long run you'll be happier saying "I never ran Boston because I never qualified and wouldn't consider charity", vs. "I ran Boston in 20XX for Charity Y. It was awesome to see how Boston comes out for the marathon. I couldn't qualify no matter how hard I tried, but didn't want to miss out on the experience." Running the course on your own will let you see it but as Altair says, it's not the course that makes it special.

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

Roadgeek, I can understand someone wanting to qualify (I certainly did)... but the allowance for charity runners is set up by the exact same people who set up the qualifying standards (The BAA). Charity is an absolutely valid way to run (as a qualifier or not). Many qualifiers choose to run for charity. I'm sure some here slam going via a charity... but those who would consider running for a charity (qualifying or not) should not pay attention to them. Charity runners do a lot of good WHILE running an awesome race, and I entirely support them.

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

Roadgeek, I can understand someone wanting to qualify (I certainly did)... but the allowance for charity runners is set up by the exact same people who set up the qualifying standards (The BAA). Charity is an absolutely valid way to run (as a qualifier or not). Many qualifiers choose to run for charity. I'm sure some here slam going via a charity... but those who would consider running for a charity (qualifying or not) should not pay attention to them. Charity runners do a lot of good WHILE running an awesome race, and I entirely support them.

I see the charity route as being more a "cause of momentary convenience" for many runners who could not get in via their necessary qualifying time. Some charities DO hold their runners to the required amount (e.g. raise $5,000) while friends have reported their charities were just happy to get half the money. However, once they crossed the finish line, the relationship was over, medal was in hand, no further effort was made to raise the remainder of the funds.

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

I hope you eventually get the qualifier you want. That said, each year the charity runners give back to Boston in a way that the qualifying runners don't. I've run 4 times, and 2 of those times I ran for charity. One year (2012) I had to run for charity because my BQ didn't quite meet the cutoff. The other year I got in as a qualifier and ran for charity also. The only place I've ever experienced people looking down on charity runners is here on these forums. It's not clear to me that in the long run you'll be happier saying "I never ran Boston because I never qualified and wouldn't consider charity", vs. "I ran Boston in 20XX for Charity Y. It was awesome to see how Boston comes out for the marathon. I couldn't qualify no matter how hard I tried, but didn't want to miss out on the experience." Running the course on your own will let you see it but as Altair says, it's not the course that makes it special.

Have you been over to letsrun.com ? They are quite pessimistic towards the charity running phenomenon as a whole.

I have come reasonably close to qualifying but have always faltered in the last few miles. I didn't make the cut plain and simple. There is no close like horseshoes and hand grenades - either you qualify or you stay home. That is how I view it.

However, now with the new standards for fastest times get in, my interest in Boston has waned to almost nil. Getting a 3:09 may be a P.R. and a BQ but will likely only get a rejection notice from BAA months later. It's their race and their choice of whom to invite, but I don't need to deal with that ambiguity.

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

I hope you eventually get the qualifier you want. That said, each year the charity runners give back to Boston in a way that the qualifying runners don't. I've run 4 times, and 2 of those times I ran for charity. One year (2012) I had to run for charity because my BQ didn't quite meet the cutoff. The other year I got in as a qualifier and ran for charity also. The only place I've ever experienced people looking down on charity runners is here on these forums. It's not clear to me that in the long run you'll be happier saying "I never ran Boston because I never qualified and wouldn't consider charity", vs. "I ran Boston in 20XX for Charity Y. It was awesome to see how Boston comes out for the marathon. I couldn't qualify no matter how hard I tried, but didn't want to miss out on the experience." Running the course on your own will let you see it but as Altair says, it's not the course that makes it special.

Have you been over to letsrun.com ? They are quite pessimistic towards the charity running phenomenon as a whole.

I have come reasonably close to qualifying but have always faltered in the last few miles. I didn't make the cut plain and simple. There is no close like horseshoes and hand grenades - either you qualify or you stay home. That is how I view it.

However, now with the new standards for fastest times get in, my interest in Boston has waned to almost nil. Getting a 3:09 may be a P.R. and a BQ but will likely only get a rejection notice from BAA months later. It's their race and their choice of whom to invite, but I don't need to deal with that ambiguity.

What you fail (or refuse) to recognize is that there are SEVERAL legitimate ways to run Boston. One is to qualify. I've done that. One is to support one of the official charities, which I hope to do for 2014. Obviously the BAA feels this is appropriate and legitimate; they reserve 20% of the field (in a normal year) for charities. Another is via the entries the BAA distributes to towns along the course, etc. Why is that any less legitimate than qualifying? The BAA set aside a certain number of entries for each of those groups. If you get one of them, good for you. When they publish the results every year, they don't put asterisks by nonqualifiers. The only way to run Boston that is NOT legitimate, IMO, is banditing.

Roadgeek: Don't give up trying to qualify. Getting older certainly helps, not only with the added time, but also I find I'm more committed to training than when I was younger. I qualified for the first time this year as a 45 year old (3:25 BQ time, ran 3:21:39, an 11 year PR) mainly by increasing my mileage significantly.

I could never ever run for a charity. The qualifying time is there for a reason and I respect it.

I hope you eventually get the qualifier you want. That said, each year the charity runners give back to Boston in a way that the qualifying runners don't. I've run 4 times, and 2 of those times I ran for charity. One year (2012) I had to run for charity because my BQ didn't quite meet the cutoff. The other year I got in as a qualifier and ran for charity also. The only place I've ever experienced people looking down on charity runners is here on these forums. It's not clear to me that in the long run you'll be happier saying "I never ran Boston because I never qualified and wouldn't consider charity", vs. "I ran Boston in 20XX for Charity Y. It was awesome to see how Boston comes out for the marathon. I couldn't qualify no matter how hard I tried, but didn't want to miss out on the experience." Running the course on your own will let you see it but as Altair says, it's not the course that makes it special.

Have you been over to letsrun.com ? They are quite pessimistic towards the charity running phenomenon as a whole.

I have come reasonably close to qualifying but have always faltered in the last few miles. I didn't make the cut plain and simple. There is no close like horseshoes and hand grenades - either you qualify or you stay home. That is how I view it.

However, now with the new standards for fastest times get in, my interest in Boston has waned to almost nil. Getting a 3:09 may be a P.R. and a BQ but will likely only get a rejection notice from BAA months later. It's their race and their choice of whom to invite, but I don't need to deal with that ambiguity.

What you fail (or refuse) to recognize is that there are SEVERAL legitimate ways to run Boston. One is to qualify. I've done that. One is to support one of the official charities, which I hope to do for 2014. Obviously the BAA feels this is appropriate and legitimate; they reserve 20% of the field (in a normal year) for charities. Another is via the entries the BAA distributes to towns along the course, etc. Why is that any less legitimate than qualifying? The BAA set aside a certain number of entries for each of those groups. If you get one of them, good for you. When they publish the results every year, they don't put asterisks by nonqualifiers. The only way to run Boston that is NOT legitimate, IMO, is banditing.

So why not hold charity runners to the qualifying standard? Why should someone be allowed to take on Boston as their "first" marathon and waddle in five and a half hours to receive a medal?

I did just that (ran the entire course) while on vacation a couple years ago. The roads ARE narrow, but it was a fantastic experience! I promised myself that one day I'd return and be there officially! Looks like next April will be my chance! I say do it!!

So, you ran a 3:09 race and didn't make the cut, right? So, you are in 35-39 age group and you are pessimistic about BQ-ing in the future? Come on, don't be ridiculous - you have 15 - 20 years (maybe more) to enjoy training/running and improving your PRs. Many runners do exactly that in their 40s and 50s (and some even in their 60s and 70s).

So, you ran a 3:09 race and didn't make the cut, right? So, you are in 35-39 age group and you are pessimistic about BQ-ing in the future? Come on, don't be ridiculous - you have 15 - 20 years (maybe more) to enjoy training/running and improving your PRs. Many runners do exactly that in their 40s and 50s (and some even in their 60s and 70s).

No, I was speaking hypothetically. My PR from several years ago fell a few minutes shy of that.

I am pessimistic because injuries are happening more frequently and freakishly now keeping me from running any marathons this year.

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.